So reading through this is a bit surprising. I hadn't been paying as much attention to some of these state based issues. It looks like the argument of the article is that despite strong historic economic numbers some of the recent steps taken by states have created challenges for businesses.
It seems that the knock down effect of reproductive health laws in a restriction in the number of practicing doctors per state. So it is not exactly the law that is the issue, but the fact that the ratio of doctors to patients is going in an adverse direction. The article is arguing that the extent is enough to create challenges for citizens in Texas. That seems like a sound premise, basically its harder to get and see a doctor because fewer doctors are moving to Texas compared to the growing population.
It seems that the states that were less of economic powerhouses to begin with could have negative effects with less strict laws since they didn't start from as strong a position.
The rest of it seems to be based on how accessible child care and health insurance are. If you want families and not just labor those resources can greatly reduce the need for high wages.
I'd briefly seen the big fails, like the Texas power grid and the bans on investment funds taking climate change into account. There was also that thing where Florida decide it was time to kill Disney.
Not moving the office buildings to Florida was a MUCH bigger deal to Disney that it appeared. The cost of 1-2 billion was going to be offset by MUCH lower cost of living for employees,(less pay as well) favorable taxes an the sale of super valuable real estate in California. It was very likely structured to be a net positive for the company. So I think that this is basically the core of the article. Even what should be on paper good deals are now in questions because of the state policies.